PROCEEDINGS
OF THE TOMSK POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, HOLDER OF THE ORDER OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND THE ORDER OF THE RED BANNER OF LABOR, named after S. M. Kirov

Volume 299　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1976

ON SOME PRINCIPLES FOR CONSTRUCTING DOCUMENTS REGULATING THE ACTIVITIES OF CONTROL SYSTEMS

E. P. GUBIN, M. A. TYRYSHKIN

(Presented by the scientific-methodological seminar of the Department of Industrial Economics and Enterprise Organization)

Solving the problem of increasing the efficiency of social production—a problem complex both in scientific-technical and in social terms—is impossible without comprehensive rationalization of control systems.

In recent years intensive work has been carried out on the design and introduction of technical means in the sphere of management. As for the study of the “technology,” organization, and processes of management, very little has yet been done in this area. At the same time, the practice of introducing the newest methods and technical means of management has convincingly shown that ordering and rationalization in control systems must precede any technical or economic-cybernetic development [1].

Rationalization of an organization’s control system (CS) is a fairly complex and labor-intensive task. Its solution is possible through purposeful, systematic improvement of the organization, structure, processes, methods, and techniques of management [2].

The processes of managing an organization are rather complex, “invisible,” and dynamic. They cannot be studied by ordinary analytical methods. And results obtained by purely speculative reasoning, as a rule, turn out to be superficial.

Therefore, the development and rationalization of an organization’s management processes is possible by creating a set of models that characterize various aspects of the system under study: its structure, interrelations, processes, and so on.

For this purpose, the following are increasingly being applied: 1) graphical; 2) economic-mathematical; 3) informational; 4) organizational-informational and other methods of modeling (describing) control systems.

We consider the question of selecting a set of models (methods of description) of control systems that characterize its various aspects and serve as the basis for formulating a number of tasks of management rationalization.

The initial premises in determining the set of models are: 1) the laws governing the functioning of socialist society; 2) the long-term and current goals of the organization’s activity, which are set before it by a higher level of management or developed by the organization itself; 3) the individual-specific features of the organization’s activity; 4) the resources of the given organization; 5) the provisions and nor-

normative acts issued by Party-and-state bodies and determined by the organization itself.

The construction of models of an MS is based on viewing the organization as a system that groups together a number of functional subsystems [3].

For an organization of the enterprise type, examples of such functional subsystems are: the subsystem of operational-calendar planning, the subsystem of product quality control, the subsystem of operational management and regulation of the course of production, etc.

Thus, a decomposition of the organization can be carried out in order to construct its hierarchy. The application of the functional-target approach [4] and the decomposition of a system of the organization type make it possible to identify particular management subsystems in the form of isolated complexes of reduced complexity.

The decomposition of the system into a number of simple systems opens up the possibility of analyzing and establishing specific processes of activity, the movement of the flow of materials and information, and the connections between the inputs and outputs of this simple system and other systems of higher and lower levels of the hierarchy.

The organizational model of an MS, as a set of certain particular models, is a complex consisting of the following interrelated elements:

1. A structural diagram of the MS as a set of goals, tasks, functions, rights, responsibilities, and resources distributed among managerial positions and interconnected with one another [5].

2. Decision-making schemes for the traditional tasks and functions of the MS [6].

3. Algorithms (or tables) for decision-making according to traditional management procedures.

4. Typical algorithms for resolving problems.

5. Schemes of document flow in the management system.

6. Network schedules for solving traditional tasks.

The presence of such an organizational model for each MS will make it possible, in a visual and readily perceivable form, to present the management technology of the given system, as well as of all levels of the hierarchy, for the purpose of its comprehensive rationalization.

In addition, the development of an organizational model will make it possible to solve, or will facilitate the solution of, the following tasks:

1) clearly define the goals, regulate the range of tasks to be solved and functions to be performed, as well as the rights, responsibilities, and resources both of an individual subdivision of the organization and of each of its executors;

2) promptly organize the implementation of new or improved decisions up to the moment of their final implementation (i.e., until graphic and descriptive models are transformed into behavioral and mental ones in the process of resolving the problems at hand);

3) accelerate, make more efficient, and make less painful the process of restructuring the MS during the introduction of an AMS;

4) accelerate the process by which newly introduced employees enter into their duties (or in cases of temporary substitutions);

5) organize rational methods of planning, interconnection, coordination, and control of management processes.

The developed organizational model of the MS may serve as the basis for constructing normative-organizational management documentation (NOMD), including Regulations on subdivisions and job descriptions.

At present, descriptive models of management in the form of such regulations and job descriptions have been developed at many enterprises; as a rule, however, they are used little in the day-to-day work of the organization [7] and do not contribute to achieving the goal of regulating and streamlining management processes and, consequently, to increasing their effectiveness.

The reasons why this documentation does not “work” at present are the following:

1) there is no general, sufficiently substantiated methodological basis for developing such documentation;

2) when taking sectoral regulations on subdivisions and job descriptions as a basis, developers give little consideration to the individual features and specificity of the functioning of an organization, shop, department, etc.;

3) regulations and job descriptions are not regularly revised in accordance with the changing dynamic process of functioning;

4) this documentation is characterized by the complexity of its perception and the difficulty of understanding the interrelation of its sections.

The following elements are fundamentally new in the structure of regulations on subdivisions and job descriptions developed on the basis of the organizational model of the control system:

1. The structure of the goals of the subdivision’s functioning.

2. A flowchart for decision-making on the subdivision’s traditional functions.

3. The presence of a “bank” of tables and decision algorithms for recurring traditional management procedures for each executor [8].

4. A network schedule for distributing over time the tasks solved by the subdivision (and by the executor).

The existence of high-quality normative-organizational management documentation (NOMD) underlies the clarity and effectiveness of the functioning of the management mechanism. Such documentation is the basis of organizational coherence in management, a condition for promptness in decision-making and for increasing responsibility for the assigned matter.

Regulatory documents (NOMD) reduce the likelihood of conflict situations and misunderstandings arising in the process of managing an organization. When NOMD is available, it is difficult for a higher-level manager to perform functions not inherent to him, to violate the rights of subordinates, who under such conditions find it hard to evade making decisions on matters within their competence and to shift their resolution to the higher-level manager. Otherwise the question arises of his competence and ability to work in the area entrusted to him. The problem of distributing responsibility among executors in solving complex tasks is significantly simplified.

The organizational model of the control system is of exceptional value for the system of improving the qualifications of production managers.

An organizational model of the control system, constructed especially for work in a “training mode,” will facilitate high-quality training in managerial progression for the corresponding positions and levels of management.

References

1. N. D. Baikov et al. Organization and Effectiveness of Production Management. Moscow, “Moskovskii rabochii,” 1973.

2. O. A. Deineko. Comprehensive Rationalization of the Managerial Apparatus. Moscow, “Ekonomika,” 1972.

3. Yu. I. Chernyak. Analysis and Synthesis of Systems in Economics. Moscow, “Ekonomika,” 1970.

4. M. M. Lopukhin. PERT: A Method of Planning and Forecasting Research Work. Moscow, “Sovetskoe radio,” 1971.

5. M. A. Tyryshkin. On the analysis and synthesis of management systems for organizational complexes. In: Cybernetics and the Higher School, issue 5, Tomsk University Press, 1972.

6. S. A. Valuev et al. Decision-Making Systems. Moscow, MESI, 1970.

7. O. V. Kozlova et al. The Enterprise Manager and His Decisions. Moscow, “Znanie,” 1971.

8. S. Young. Systemic Management of an Organization. Moscow, “Sovetskoe radio,” 1972.